A lot of it is that people misunderstand two fundamental things - what "belief" is and what "impossible" really means. I'll deal with them seperately.

There are very few people (admittedly, some) who truly Believe in things like astrology and numerology and such. Belief, to be sure, is different from blind faith - if you believe in something because you were told to, or because you think the world would be a boring place without it, or because, well, that's what people believe in where you come from, that's not true Belief (which I think I'll call capital-B Belief for clarity). Belief is, as Sam was getting at farther down in this thread, something that is no less carefully thought out than scientific method, just directed in a different fashion.

You talk about the internal consistency of the scientific method (and, by extension, of the Knowledge that results) as being of extreme importance, and I cannot agree more. But the same rules apply to Belief. True Belief *requires* thought and skeptecism exactly as you mentioned. Paul Tillich wrote quite a body of work about how there can be no faith without doubt - if you never doubt what you believe in, then you've obviously not thought about it enough to have Belief (note: yes, I know Tillich's point was much more complex than that; I've simplified it to the relevant part). I majored in theology, and I learned all the standard arguments against the existence of God (ESPECIALLY theodicy). If I believe in God anyhow, it's not because I'm *ignoring* these arguments (as many people seem to assume), but because I've heard them, and I've thought about them, and I've evaluated my beliefs in light of them, and resolved them, just like a good scientist would do. As I'm sure Dave would tell you, I'm always willing to listen and discuss and think whenever anyone has a legitimate challenge. ;-}

Precious few people could claim a "belief" in astrology that passes that test. Most people (in my experience, anyhow) who profess belief in astrology believe in it because it's fun to do so, and little more. I mean, whenever I get a fortun cookie (or happen to spot my horoscope), I like to keep my eyes open the next day to see how accurate it was. This isn't because of any conviction on my part that it has any basis in reality, but because it would amuse me if it were right.

As for the truth of astrology - yes, according to quantum theory, the stars not only could but *do* influence our lives. But since leading scientists are *still* struggling to figure out exactly what the heck quantum means, and how it works, I don't believe that anyone who fully understands quantum relations is working as a horoscope editor for a newspaper. Which means that quantum causality can be effectively disregarded as a source of "proof" for astrology, since there is no one involved who is capable of employing it. Anyone who can prove me wrong, please do so.

Anyhow, as for possibility. People are too quick to assume absoltues where only strong probablility resides. We cannot get "proof positive" from the scientific method - its basis in a posteriori observations and its fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality (that reality is observable, that cause is followed by effect, etc.) eliminate its ability to give us definitive objective proof of anything. What it *can* do for us is help us organise our thought, as you've said, and lead us to conclusions with a strong probability of being correct, and which are internally consistent. For most people, that is close enough to definite that they'll call it proof. For example, most people, if you ask them if the sun will rise tomorrow, will say yes. But, as someone (frum, I believe) mentioned earlier, we can't state that with absolute scientific certainty.

Yes, you're right. My earlier statement of "no newspaper astrologers understand quantum causality" is included in that list of statements that can't be made definitely; scientifically speaking, there is a strikingly low chance of that being the case, but it could theoretically be possible. I was aware of that at the time, and, if you can prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to eat that statement.

I'm starting to fly way off topic into a completely different discussion that will keep me up typing all night and fill up Sam's webspace, so I think I'd best stop here. ;-}